American Support For Israel Must Remain Bipartisan

Melanie Phillips has written a critique of me because I remain a Democrat and continue to support President Barack Obama, despite his recent statements regarding expansion of Israeli settlements and other matters relating to the Middle East conflict. Other conservative supporters of Israel have joined her in attacking me as well. This is how she put it:

But just like the majority of American Jews, getting on for 80 per cent of whom voted for Obama, he is a Democrat supporter who is incapable of acknowledging the truth about this President. For most American Jews, the horror of even entertaining the hypothetical possibility that they might ever in a million years have to vote for a Republican is so great they simply cannot see what is staring them in the face -- that this Democratic President is lethal for both Israel and the free world.

She accuses me of being "blind" and says "he doesn't get it."

Oh I get it alright. I just fundamentally disagree with her approach, especially when it comes to the United States.

Phillips, for all her good work in Great Britain on behalf of Israel, has absolutely no understanding of American politics. She would turn Israel into a wedge issue, in which Republicans were seen as the supporters of Israel and Democrats as its enemy. This is precisely what has happened, with disastrous results, throughout much of Europe. In most European countries, the left wing political parties are anti-Israel, often virulently so. The right wing political parties are generally more supportive of Israel, though not nearly as supportive as they should be in many instances. Because young people tend to be more liberal than their elders, support for Israel throughout Europe has also become a generational wedge issue, with younger people opposing Israel far more than older people.

This is precisely the situation American supporters of Israel want to avoid. We do not want to replicate the horrible situation that currently exists in Phillips' Great Britain. We want Israel to remain a bipartisan issue and an issue that does not divide generations. During the Bush administration, Republican support for Israel--which they linked to their failed Iraq policy--alienated many younger and more liberal voters who despised Bush, Cheney and their policies.

Among the reasons that I supported Obama, having first supported Hillary Clinton, is because I believed, and continue to believe, that a young, extremely popular African American President who supports Israel, even if he disagrees with its policies regarding settlement expansion, would be far more influential with mainstream Americans and with people throughout the world than an old conservative republican, who also supported Israel. That is why I gave, and continued to give, President Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt in his dealings with Israel. I take him at his word that he seeks to bring about peace, by means of a two state solution pursuant to which all the Arab states recognize Israel's right to thrive as a Jewish democracy, while agreeing that any Palestinian state must be demilitarized and incapable of waging war or terrorist attacks against Israel.

I also take him at his word when he says that the United States will not accept a nuclear armed Iran, and I believe that he has a better chance of achieving that goal through diplomacy--including sanctions if necessary--than would a tough talking and non-negotiating Republican administration.

I believe that although a military attack on Iran could have disastrous and far reaching consequences, a nuclear armed Iran would have far graver consequences. I do not know whether the Obama administration would, as a last resort, use military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Nor do I know whether a Republican administration would have engaged in military action against Iran, especially in light of its failed war in Iraq. Neither do I know whether the Obama administration would try to prevent Israel from defending its civilians against an Iranian nuclear bomb by argumentatively attacking its nuclear facilities, as Israel did to Iraq in 1981. In a recent statement Vice President Biden strongly suggested that he believes that Israel should have the right to take military action to protect its citizens, if all other options fail. I believe that Dennis Ross holds similar views. The Bush administration, on the other hand, refused to supply Israel with weapons necessary to implement a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, and according to press reports, it was reluctant to give Israel the green light to attack on its own.

No one knows precisely what any administration would do under varying and unpredictable scenarios. As I have previously written, I would strongly oppose a United States policy of learning to live with an Iranian nuclear bomb, regardless of which administration supported such a dangerous approach.

Recall that it was the Bush administration that for the first time announced its support for a Palestinian state--a position with which I agree, so long as it is completely demilitarized and incapable of aggression against Israel. Recall as well that it was the Bush administration that insisted on a freeze on Israel settlements in the West Bank--a position with which I also agree, subject to humanitarian and pragmatic considerations. (This should come as no surprise to anyone who has read my writings, since I have opposed Israel's civilian settlement policy since 1973. You can strongly support Israel's right to defend itself without supporting its settlement policy.)

Let me say as well that there were parts of President Obama's Cairo speech with which I disagreed, but there have also been parts of Republican speeches with which I have disagreed. I judge administrations by their actions more than by their words, though I wish President Obama had chosen some of his words more carefully.

The major difference between Melanie Phillips and me is that I want Jews to remain Democrats--if they support, as I do, liberal principles such as a women's right to choose abortion, the rights of gays and lesbians to equal justice, and other progressive policies. I also strongly support the separation of church and state, a constitutional principle that has allowed American Jews to be first class citizens and to reach greater heights in this wonderful country than they ever have achieved in Europe or anywhere else in the world except for Israel. Republicans, in general, seek to lower the wall of separation which would endanger the status of Jews in this country.

I also want Jews who disagree with my liberal politics to remain Republicans, if they choose, and to exercise influence within the Republican Party. I want all supporters of Israel, whether they are Democrats or Republicans to pressure their party and their government to protect Israel's security and defend its right to continue to thrive as a Jewish democracy.

It was clear to all perceptive Americans that Obama was going to win this past election in a landslide victory. The vast majority of Jews were on the winning side, and that is good for Israel. Recall the Republican Secretary of State James Baker's infamous remark: "F...the Jews. They don't vote for us anyway." Recall as well that among Israel's most virulent opponents are right wingers such as Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak.

Let me conclude by saying that because American Jews voted Democrat by and large and because the Democrats won, we have far more influence with this administration than we would if the majority of American Jews followed Melanie Phillips advice and voted Republican. When it comes to American politics, it is she who truly "doesn't get it." She should not be trying to influence the voting patterns of American Jews. We have done quite well, thank you, in maintaining widespread American support for Israel, because we understand the dynamics of the American political system. Instead, she should be trying to change the terrible situation in Great Britain, where support for Israel has never been lower--in part because support for Israel has become a liberal versus conservative wedge issue. I wish there were more liberal supporters of Israel in Great Britain as there are among liberal political figures in the United States. So please stop lecturing us from your perch in Great Britain on who to vote for in the United States. We apparently "get it" over here a lot better than you do over there! The reality is we each have our problems and they must be addressed somewhat differently in different places.

So I will continue to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt, but if he does anything to weaken Israel's security, I will do everything in my power to change his attitude and to use whatever influence we have in Congress and among the public to make sure that American never weakens its commitment to Israel's security. That is my line in the sand--not the settlements.

Comments

[outnow]

The choice is between civil liberties and Zionism. The idea is that both political parties have to go along with thr later agenda. The problem is that a huge conflict of interest exists.

What if a jihadist had a jihad PAC and wanted both political parties to support their agenda in the United States? I feel like I am being pushed around by agendas that are basically un-American.

Many of us in America also fell like the Fundies of all stripe are pushing. Look at Sanford and his religious agenda.

The Dershowitz I knew believed in civil rights. What happened? A retainer fee?

[eshy99]

Civil liberties and Zionism go together - they are not mutually exclusive, as you claim. Arabs have more rights in Israel than in any other Arab nation in the world. Israel is a democracy that guarantees equal rights to all its citizens, regardless of race or religion. Unfortunately, this isn't true of any other country in the Middle East.

[MemoryAlpha]

Query:
Provide a quote from the Israeli constitution that makes civil rights for non-Jews guaranteed.

[patricia77]

Dear Mr D.

I live in England, where Jews like me have to put up with Melanie Phillips pretending to talk for us on a regular basis.

Her Daily Mail appearances are limited to its readers, and her Spectator comments are even more siloed, but her appearances on the BBC, though fewer than they were, continue to embarass us hugely.

She has lost all sense of proportionality, defends the indefensible, character assassinates on a consistently petulent and increasingly ruthless basis and shows a racial and religious hatred, which her Spectator blog provokes mercilessley, towards Muslims and Palestinians that is increasingly beyond the pale.

As such, to be a prominent, informed and thoughtful Jew who is slimed by a woman of such questionnable if not objectionable ideology, is a badge of honour - you are by no means alone.

So please do not think that Phillips speaks for anyone other than herself a coterie of those like her. She certainly does not speak for the UK Jewish community for whom she has become an embarassment.

[BackToFight]

Mr. Dershowitz, let me see if I understand what you are saying:

You have acknowledged that the "left" believes that the Israeli government's recent actions are of the type that are identifiable and typical of the extreme right wing, and they are losing popularity with the American public and American Jewish liberals. What you are asking of the liberals and the left in general to do is to not associate Israel's policies and actions with the right wing even if it does coincide with right wing values and direction, and disregard the fact that Israeli politics are currently right-wing and extremist and support them either way?

I don't understand the logic behind that...unless your argument is that we should support Israel regardless of its actions and regardless of whether its current policy coincides with our values, morals, and beliefs.

[JJarmitage]

Mr. Dershowitz,

I have voted democratic all of my life, I am not a Jew, yet I support Jews and Israel. I did not vote democrat this last election because I saw clearly the threat this President would be to the Jewish state and the free world. You continue to cling to your "ideals" as the truth stare you in the face.

V.P. Biden's comments were repudiated by P. Obama, so if this is your best example of their "support" Israel is in deeper water than you currently imagine.

Ms. Phillips has you tagged, as I know many Jews like yourself. Your banner as a progressive is much more important than any reality.

You will meet reality soon and that meeting will be harsh.

[arle]

Anyone else notice that as soon as someone flips from left to right, "democratic" becomes "democrat"? You can actually /see/ it in the first two sentences. It's like the Republican Party has a vendetta on the notion of grammar.

[Norman Richardson]

Most people seem to conveniently ignore the fact that there is and has always been a Palestinian state, it's called Jordan. Look it up.

[GeoffMenendez]

Not this lie again.

Jordan was never intended to be a Palestinian state. In fact, when it was created in 1922 as Transjordan, there was no certainty there would even be a Jewish state, as opposed to some other form of "homeland," in Palestine. Transjordan was always intended as a state separate from, and addition to, whatever Palestinian state arose in Palestine and was held to be excluded from the "Jewish homeland" provisions of the Mandate.

The notion that it was "the" Palestinian state, with the implication that it would be somehow okay to move the Palestinians between the Jordan and the sea there, or that Israel has some right to all that land, or that it is okay to oppress the Palestinians, is an ugly bigoted myth akin to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and should be rejected as such by all thinking people.

[BubbaC33]

Perhaps you ought to try reading an unbiased history of the Near East. Trans jordan was created in 1922 when the Mandate authorities took over 70% of the proposedf Jewish Homeland. Yes, a Jewish Homeland was already in the planning stage, it was pretty certain there would be a Jewish Hmeland.
Transjordan was created to serve two purposes. It was to be a kingdom for the Hashemite allies of the Brits. It was also cretaed to serve as a homeland for any Arabs unwilling to live among the Jews. It was not considered to be a Palestinian homeland for a very simple reason. Until 1964 no Arab self-identified as Palestinian. The Arabs living in eretz Israel would have self-identified as Syrian or by the home nation of their father. Calling an Arab a Palestinian would have been considered to be a serious insult.
In 1947 the Arabs rejected the idea of a partition and by doing so gave up any claim to any of the land in the mandate area. At this point in time the Arabs lack standing to dispute Israeli ownership. The only entity with a right to dispute ownership of the West bank is Jordan. The Arab nation that did not attempt to establish a Palestinian homeland is the only entity with standing.

[arle]

Uh, no, actually, Jodan is Jordanian and Palestine is Palestinian. You're not being very convincing telling me that some white guy from Russia has more right to be on that land than someone whose family has been living their for centuries if not millenia.

[BubbaC33]

Convincing you of anything about Israel or the region is of no importance at all.

[DannyBlack]

Neither Jordan nor Palestine ever existed, they are solely artificial creations of the UK. The 1919 mandate included Jordan, the fact that the UK decided to reward their puppets with a slice of that mandate doesn't make it "Jordanian". Wierd though that you have an issue with Jewish immigrants but hashimite immigrants from the hijaz controlling part of the original mandate are perfectly acceptable. Just like the 19 occupation of the West bank by Jordan was perfectly ok but by Israel is the root of the world's woes....

Also Arabs conquered what is now Israel in the 7th century and millenia is plural. Maybe you are confusing arabs with Jews?

[whoa20]

Dershowitz, you are great! I would be furious if Israel turned into a partisan issue, and we can thank Bush for virtually doing it on the blogs. If only he hadn't screwed it up big time, Israel would not be facing such pressure for defending itself. I hope Obama does repair Israel's image in America among liberals, because while most Democrats still support it, its not as high as it needs to be, as the Daily Kos are gaining ground in the party!

[arle]

Do we need any more evidence that Zionists are siding with conservatives to undermine progressive politics in the US? You guys are becoming a threat to both the left /and/ the center. That's why Israel is becoming an unpopular issue.

[arle]

"Jewish democracy." If Israel were really a democracy, why is there a problem granting right of return to Palestinians who were driven off in the Nakba? Why are there laws making it virtually impossible for someone in Israel to marry someone in the Palestinian territories in a way that grants them citizenship and allows them to live with their spouse?

Better still, why not grant Israelis and Palestinians equal citizenship and let them /all/ vote, huh?

Or is that too much democracy for you?

[courtb]

Is the right of return a democratic issue now?

And Arab Israelis do get to vote. Palestinians are not citizens of Israel and don't get to vote in Israeli elections but do get to vote in Palestinian elections.

I swear, Arle, do you even know what makes a democracy?

[arle]

...And when Palestinians don't vote for Western stooges, /this/ happens.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804

The way Israel handles right of return is a clear subversion of democracy. Families who were run off their homes in 1948 are denied access while white immigrants like Avigdor Lieberman are extended a right of "return," and get to occupy those homes vacated by ethnic cleansing. It is a deliberate strategy to subvert democracy by engineering Israeli society so that Jews always possess tyranny of the majority.

[GeoffMenendez]

Please. Take two people. Both born in the West Bank 20 years ago. One a Jew, one an Arab. They live basically identical lives. Yet one is permitted to vote on the conditions that govern him and one is not, solely because one is a Jew and one is not. That's a democracy in the same way apartheid-era South Africa was a democracy.

[courtb]

Mr. Dershowitz,

Thank you so much for this article. As an American liberal Jew who has worked in the UK for the past few years, people like Phillips have done my head in. The situation in the UK is appalling and disgusting and I am personally glad to be heading home. The US is not heading that way yet, thank goodness, and hopefully never will.

I will be passing this on.

[Freenation]

you mean those who sympathesize with palestinian's plight are depressing you...and yet propagandists make your head high...how original...

[WorkingClass]

As you know Alan, Israel has pretty much lost the American street. Americans tend to be (to put it politely) politically naive. They are told, and like to believe, that America can do no wrong. And so they mostly look the other way when America bombards, invades and destroys Iraq without justification. So why is it that Americans object to the collective punishment of Lebanon and more recently Gaza? Its because Israel is not the United States and ONLY the United States is allowed to perpetrate such atrocities. American voters have very little clout in Washington regardless of the party in power. Still, the loss of public support makes it difficult to sustain the "Israel right or wrong" policies of previous administrations. If the Israeli government values its alliance with the United States it must adjust to changing political realities. A halt, however temporary, to the construction of "settlements" would give Obama the cover he needs. A unilateral strike against Iran would have the opposite affect.

[courtb]

What do you have to back up such assertions?

You see, I have numbers. I have a gallup poll released in March of this year, that states that American support for Israel remains unchanged. http://www.gallup.com/poll/116308/americans-support-israel-unchanged-gaza-conflict.aspx In fact, most Americans don't support giving any aid to the Palestinians while Hamas remains in power. Here, this may help you out as well: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1639/Middle-East.aspx

So I repeat...what loss?

[arle]

Yeah, the problem with March is that that was four months ago.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/166481

[Darwin256]

". . . freeze on Israel settlements in the West Bank--a position with which I also agree, subject to humanitarian and pragmatic considerations."

So despite the dominance of Israel in the West Bank, a "freeze" on further expansion might not meet "humanitarian and pragmatic considerations".

Mr. Dershowitz, you just disqualified yourself.

[pkafin]

There is a difference on a "freeze on Israeli settlements" and a "freeze on further expansion". It may be too subtle of a point for a Huff-Po forum, but adding buildings to one of the major settlement blocks without expanding it's borders is a very different thing than adding land to a marginal settlement or creating a brand new outpost.

Israel cannot continue to expropriate land and expect anyone to think it's OK. However it's neither a war crime nor even an honest provocation to add buildings on land that no one thinks will end up in a future state of Palestine.

[FrancesP]

Good article Alan. I am an Obama supporter and I want to remain one. I hope he does not let us down.

[whoa20]

me too. I am scared he is pandering to this anti-Israel crowd, by piling on Israel and demanding nothing from the Palestinians.

[MaxExpose]

me too. I am scared he is pandering to this anti-Muslim crowd, by piling on Palestinians and demanding nothing from the Israelis.

[natturnerx]

while i'm certainly no friend of z.iionism, i am impressed by the pragmatic logic of der.showitz's thinking here. the great achievement of j.e.wish politics in this country is their success at fostering a situation where they win regardless of which party win. as an a.f.rican-american i'm somewhat envious of their skill at doing that, because when a certain party wins, we lose. however, i dont know how much longer they'll be able to do that. there is definitely a backlash building on the left. it would definitely be a supreme irony if liberal j.e.ws accomodated themselves to the republican party out of ethnic self-interest, just as conservative b.lacks have accomodated themselves to the democratic party for much the same reason.

[arvay]

Translation: we must infiltrate both political parties, bribe and intimidate as necessary, so that we can protect our true country, Israel. . . .

[courtb]

Infiltrate? Really? How sneaky of us.

[Discomustachio]

Thank you. There are probably going to be a million comments on here by days end I'd bet yours sums up what he said best.

To this guy Israel is everything, America is just a means to an end, and Palestinians only need to be upgraded from complete squalor to something resembling American Indian Reservations. I mean hey-"God" said that the land belongs Jews-gotta do what ya gotta do right?

[Michael Bloodyscott]

Obama must do what is good for America first but also try to do what is best for all the people in Israel and the West bank/Gaza. The Palestians leaders have done a very poor job of improving their peoples lifes but every time peace gets close some in Israel find away to set the Pals off. Both sides have used terror to get their way over the years and both sides believe they are in the right. The Palestians have too little hope and too much hate and in Israel many believe that all the land is their right and if they just get rid of the Pals then the problem is solved. Obama is now trying to put the first phase of the Roadmap in place, which in part call for the stop of the settlements. Either stop the settlements or let all the Pals become citizens of Israel and the right of return apply to both Jews and Muslims.

[GeoffMenendez]

"Pals"? Don't be so bigotted.

[courtb]

Is it also bigoted (spelled correctly) to call British people "Brits"?

[Squaker]

Its very sad that you connect your ethnicity to policy

I do not want Obama to "support" Israel
I want Obama to be an impartial mediator between the two sides of a conflict, not take one side over the other.

[BubbaC33]

Your idea is goofy. If Pres. Obama has a choice between good and evil I want him to support good. Which in this case is Israel.

[Squaker]

I don't equate good and evil based on ethnicity

[Romulus]

You're trippon', Bubba. Extremists on both sides are evil.

[GeoffMenendez]

LOL What a twisted view you have, where white phosphorus, murdering innocent children, torture, oppression and occupation aren't "evil". You must be Israeli. No one else could be so deaf morality-wise.

[courtb]

Come on Bubba. We all know the situation is not black and white-there is no good or evil. Such labels help nothing. There are good Israelis and bad Israelis, just like there are good Palestinians and bad Palestinians.

[shallyv]

i'm with you, alan, even though you're self-promoting at times. but then, what else could i expect from a lawyer?

[Freenation]

more lies and spin ofcourse....